Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I have no further requests for time, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I rise in support of it. Mr. Chair, this amendment recognizes the unique and special character of historic ships and would keep in place the current EPA vessel discharge program for historic ferries. I am particularly interested in this because the SS Badger, which operates on Lake Michigan between Ludington, Michigan, and Manitowoc, Wisconsin, in my Congressional district, is believed to be the last coal fired vessel in regular commercial service. This 50-year-old ship is an important part of our history, culture and tradition. It is currently on the National Register of Historic Places and has been nominated as a National History Landmark as an important part of our heritage. The economic impact on Manitowoc, a small city of only 34,000 people, is $14 million a year, and the Badger is responsible for providing about 250 jobs on both sides of the lake. It attracts about 100,000 visitors to our cities each year. Under this amendment, historic ferries would continue to operate under the parameters of the current general vessel permit. The Badger management has spent significant resources over the last few years trying to find a way to convert the vessel to a more modern propulsion system. But it is a difficult, complicated, and costly task. Even with the passage of this amendment, the owners of the Badger will continue working with the Maritime Administration and the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute on a program to repower steamships-- with the Badger serving as the model vessel for the study. Congress and the EPA have recognized the special nature of historic steamships before. Just a couple years ago, we exempted more than 50 older and unique Great Lakes steamships from new air emission rules. (I might add that effort was spearheaded by then-Chairmen Dave Obey and Jim Oberstar.) This amendment follows that model, and I urge my colleagues to support it today. The discharge from the Badger has been repeatedly tested and it is non-toxic and NOT hazardous. It uses high quality, low-sulfur coal. The Badger operators have taken many steps over the years to reduce discharges and coal use. Some act as if the Badger has been out of compliance for decades--but prior to 2008, ``discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel'' were excluded from getting discharge permits. It was a 2006 court decision that required the new permits. The Badger serves as an extension of Hwy. 10 across Lake Michigan and carries semi-trucks and large oversized vehicles and other vehicles that otherwise would be driving around the Lake and through the congested Chicago area. By one estimate, that saves one million gallons of fuel each year and reduces air emissions. The environment will not be saved by shutting down the Badger, but you will kill jobs, our local economy and a bit of our history.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full Transportation Committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2594) to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union's emissions trading scheme, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill before us, H.R. 2594.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011. Starting in January of 2012, the European Union will begin to unilaterally apply its emissions trading scheme to civil aviation operators landing in or departing from one of the EU member states. Under the emissions trading scheme, EU member states will require international air carriers and operators to pay for emission allowances and, in some cases, penalties for carbon emissions. The scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those parts of the flight outside the EU airspace. For instance, on a flight leaving Los Angeles for London, taxes will be levied not just on the portion of the flight over the United Kingdom, but also for the portions of the flight over the United States' sovereign soil and the high seas. On September 30, 21 countries, including the U.S., signed a joint declaration against the EU emissions trading scheme in New Delhi, India. Despite serious legal issues and objections by the international community, the EU is pressing ahead with its plans. The bill before us will prohibit U.S. aircraft operators from participating in this illegal scheme put forward unilaterally by the EU. The European Union's unilateral application of the scheme onto U.S.-flagged operators without the consent of the United States Government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement. There are also concerns that the emissions trading scheme is nothing more than a revenue raiser for EU member states, as there is no requirement that EU member states must use the funds for anything related to the reduction of carbon dioxide production by the civil aviation sector. The emissions trading scheme will extract money from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in NextGen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft, just two proven methods for improving environmental performance. In addition, the scheme would introduce a new commodities market into the cost structure for airlines. Given the havoc fluctuating oil markets have played on the U.S. airline industry, it doesn't make sense to subject the struggling airline industry to another commodities market that is vulnerable to speculation. According to the Air Transport Association's testimony before the Aviation Subcommittee this July, the extraction of capital from the aviation system as envisioned under the EU emissions trading scheme could threaten as many as 78,500 U.S. jobs. This is unacceptable. Finally, there are considerable concerns about the proliferation of EU member states' ``eco-charges'' being put in place on top of the emissions trading scheme. Questions have arisen as to whether the eco- charges are consistent with U.S. member states' obligations under international law and whether some of these charges may, in effect, be double charges for the same emissions the EU intends to regulate under the emissions trading scheme. Given all of these concerns, we believe that the European Union needs to slow down and carefully weigh their plans to include international civil aviation in their emissions trading scheme. We believe a better approach is to work within the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce emissions. However, because the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we're moving this bipartisan legislation forward to ensure U.S. operators will not participate in their unilateral and questionable scheme. The Obama administration, Republicans and Democrats here in the House have recognized the troubled approach taken by the Europeans and have expressed ardent opposition. This legislation is one of many avenues the United States can take, concurrent with others, to resolve this conflict. To be sure, the United States Government will use all tools at its disposal to hold our aviation interests harmless from the Europeans' unfair and illegal scheme. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. October 5, 2011. Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Mica: Thank you for your prior consultation with us on H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, given the jurisdictional equities of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in that bill. I am writing to confirm the agreement of the Foreign Affairs Committee to be discharged from consideration of H.R. 2594 in order to expedite its consideration on the House floor. In agreeing to waive consideration of that bill, this Committee does not waive any jurisdiction that it has over provisions in that bill or any other matter. This also does not constitute a waiver of the participation of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in any conference on this bill. I ask that you include a copy of this letter and your response in any Committee report on H.R. 2594 and in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. Thank you again for your consideration and collegiality in this matter. Cordially, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bill Shuster.

Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the two previous speakers from Massachusetts and California that we're not in any way talking about EU passing laws governing the behavior of our planes or anyone else in EU territory. We are talking about EU attempting to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over flights over the United States or international waters in violation of the agreement reached by each of the EU countries separately with ICAO, as well as of course every other country--190 in the world--that belong to that international order that allows for the peaceful movement of aviation throughout our globe. To deny that would be very disruptive and set a precedent that cannot be accepted. That's why not only our administration, but the administrations of over 21 other countries joined recently in New Delhi, India to condemn this. Other countries are in the process of adopting legislation similar to that which we are adopting here today. We're not talking about emission trading schemes or anything else. We're talking about the principle of territoriality and countries attempting to exercise that beyond the legitimate and recognized bounds that have been accepted by international law. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), if he would care to rebut.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I want to commend the National Breast Cancer Coalition, NBCC, for its work to ``change the conversation'' about breast cancer through its Breast Cancer Deadline 2020. I have signed the Congressional Declaration of Support for this initiative. It is estimated that 261,100 women and 1,970 men were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2010. In that same year, 39,840 women and 390 men died of the disease, which translates to one death every 14 minutes. While breast cancer mortality has been dropping, the pace has been much too slow: In 1991, 119 women in the U.S. died of breast cancer every day, while in 2010 that number was 110. The stakes are too high to continue the current trend. Thousands have already lost their lives to this terrible disease, and sadly thousands more may lose their lives in the next decade if more progress is not made quickly. January 1, 2020, is an ambitious but necessary target if we are to finally end the tragedy of breast cancer, so I thank NBCC again for their leadership in this effort.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I salute Taiwan on its forthcoming Centennial National Day, also known as Double-10 Day, October 10, 2011. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a model of success for Asia. For over six decades now, the Taiwanese people have struggled to lift their island into the top ranks of the world's economies. The recently released 2010 World Competitive Yearbook finds Taiwan to have the 8th most competitive economy among the 58 countries surveyed. Over the past year, the number of employed people has increased and the unemployment rate has dropped to an enviable 5.17 percent. Even more important than its economic achievements, Taiwan has developed into a strong and vibrant democracy. It is a valued member of the free nations of the world, even though it is burdened with particular and unique diplomatic challenges--challenges which the Taiwanese people and government have met with courage. On the occasion of the Republic of China's Centennial National Day, I hope there can be renewed peaceful coexistence and co-prosperity between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. There have been many agreements reached between the two sides, including direct air and sea links, increased mutual investments, and regular negotiations over economic and other substantial issues. Also, I offer my congratulations to Taiwan for its continued participation in the World Health Assembly meetings last May in Geneva and to its continuing commitment to safeguarding human rights and other universal values. Congratulations to the Republic of China. I look forward to closer relations between the United States and Taiwan.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my chairman. I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 2887, the Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011. House and Senate negotiators have worked for the last 5 months to resolve the issues between the House and the Senate on the long-term FAA reauthorization bills. We're seeking this extension to allow time for us to complete negotiations on the final multi-year bill. We need to get a long-term FAA bill done so that the agency and airports can more efficiently plan and carry out programs and projects. The bill before us, H.R. 2887, is a clean 4-month extension of the Federal Aviation Administration's taxes and programmatic authorities. The extension will provide resources for the safe operation of the National Airspace System and for the continued certification services of the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill also authorizes funding for the Airport Improvement Program which, together with the surface transportation programs extended in the bill, authorizes critical funding for important infrastructure construction projects that will help preserve and create much-needed jobs. I also want to express my support for the extension of our surface transportation programs. We must continue to fund critical highway, bridge and other projects across our country in order to have the transportation network necessary for economic growth and our global competitiveness. The extension we have proposed is a sensible way forward, and I join Chairman Mica in urging my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Chair, I inadvertently did not vote on the Carney amendment to H.R. 1892. I would have voted for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 357, I call up the bill (H.R. 2553) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the third consecutive Congress, we are working to pass a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. This year both the House and Senate passed their own reauthorizations; but, unfortunately, negotiations with the Senate have slowed, and it is necessary for us to pass another extension to enable the FAA to continue to operate. This bill is a short-term extension of FAA funding and programs through September 16 at current levels. This extension also includes important reforms to the Essential Air Service program. These reforms could result in as much as $20 million in savings for the American taxpayer. The first reform provision was adopted unanimously by the Senate and is included in its reauthorization bill. That provides that only airports that are 90 miles or more away from a large- or medium-hub airport would be eligible to participate in the Essential Air Service-- 90 miles away. People can obviously and in most instances would prefer to drive 90 miles rather than take a connecting flight. It seems like a sensible thing. We hadn't thought about it when we passed our original legislation; the Senate did. We are including their reform. So we are, in effect, acceding to the Senate. In the case of one airport under the current program which is within 90 miles, we are paying a per passenger subsidy of $851, and the nearest hub is 82 miles away. That is a $10 per mile subsidy. So the second provision dealing with Essential Air Service caps the subsidies for each passenger, in addition to the fares they pay, at $1,000. During this economically difficult time, it is not possible to justify using taxpayer dollars to pay a subsidy of $1,000 per passenger at an EAS airport, and subsidies can frequently exceed that amount. If there are difficulties with that, there is other language that would allow the executive branch to waive this provision. The EAS provisions included in the extension are limited and sensible reforms that target the most indefensible of the subsidies. If we can't do this, what can we do, especially after 23 or 24 extensions that have been holding the whole program and the efficiency and improvements in the air infrastructure of our country hostage. The House-passed bill actually phases out the Essential Air Services program for all but Alaska and Hawaii. We are not insisting on that at all. We are modifying that and going along with largely what the Senate itself has been suggesting in this regard. So these provisions are a compromise, and EAS will continue to be discussed as we work to finalize the bill. As Congress tries to find a way forward to address deficit and long- term debt issues, if we can't put an end to these extravagant subsidies, then we will never be able to rein in spending where really hard decisions are necessary. Although I continue to hold out hope that we will reach a compromise with the Senate in the near future, it is necessary to pass this extension to provide the FAA with continued funding authority and provide needed EAS reform. Ultimately, we need to get back to the negotiating table to work out a long-term FAA bill. Short-term extensions are not the way to run such an important agency. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, July 18, 2011. Hon. John Mica, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 2553, the ``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV'' which is expected to be scheduled for floor consideration this week. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3 of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes to September 16, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 2553 for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 2553, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration. Sincerely, Dave Camp, Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. PETRI. I would just point out to my colleagues that the provision that was changed by the National Labor Relations Board to which my colleague referred has been the law of this land for a generation. So it's not anti-labor fervor at all; it's more regular order. Madam Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just thought, as long as we were spending some time talking about the modest cleaning up of the series of, kind of, earmarks that have accumulated over the years in the Essential Air Service program, which was referred to by the chairman of the committee as a program that started out as a true essential air service to help provide access to the outside world to very isolated communities, it has gradually been kind of earmarked, going from $50 million to some $200 million in cost. They're not isolated, but they are subsidized. God knows why. Let me just mention a few of the areas that would be affected by these modest changes: that it has to be more than 90 miles from another airport and, secondly, that we try to cap the subsidy, unless it's varied somewhat by the Secretary, at $1,000 per seat, per flight. One that would be affected that is currently being subsidized is Jonesboro, Arkansas. It's 82 miles from Memphis. You can't drive 82 miles, and you want the Federal Government to provide service? Athens, Georgia, is 72 miles from Atlanta, and it's getting subsidized. We're worrying about billions of dollars of subsidies. If we can't even do this, where do we start? They say a big journey starts with a single step, and we're not willing to take even in this small area the most modest of steps. Harristown, Maryland, which is north of here, is 78 miles from the Dulles Airport. It's getting a subsidy of over $800 per flight, and it's right near Baltimore as well. There is Glendive, Montana, which is 60 miles from another essential airport in Montana. It's just 60 miles. You could drive over to Sidney--but no, they're asking for a $1,357 subsidy, per passenger, flying from Glendive under this program. Alamogordo, New Mexico, is 89 miles from a hub airport in El Paso, but instead of driving 89 miles, there continues to be a $1,500 subsidy. You can rent a car. This is a profligate, hard-to-defend use of the taxpayers' money, yet people are talking about closing the government down or the FAA down unless they can spend $1,500 to subsidize a flight when you can drive 89 miles to another airport. This is what we're talking about, and this is why my constituents and many others are wondering when we're going to get serious out here about taking the modest steps to get our financial affairs and our stewardship of the Federal taxpayers' money under better control. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. PETRI. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I'd like to thank my colleagues on the Rules Committee for so expeditiously bringing up this rule for consideration this afternoon of I think it's the 21st temporary extension of the reauthorization of the FAA legislation. This reauthorization has been held hostage for several years, and it is not cost-free. It's interfering with the efficiency of operations, the ability to plan and to expend funds on needed airport improvements all across the country. So we're paying a price for this sort of thing, and I really don't think we should be allowing people to assert that they have the right unilaterally to hold up the whole process, that it's their way or the highway, especially when what we're doing in this particular mild change to reform a needed part of this legislation, Essential Air Service, which is badly in need of reform, is basically acceding to language that's already in the Senate bill. By agreeing to the bill that in this respect has passed the other House, this is nonnegotiable that we can be so bold as to simply say, Fine, we'll agree to the language that you have which basically provides that if an airport is within 90 miles of a major airport, it's not eligible for Essential Air Service. The other provides that the cap on subsidy from the Federal Government would be $1,000 per passenger. Now, what are we talking about? You can rent a car for a lot less than $1,000; and most people, frankly, prefer not to go through a couple of changes, to a feeder airline to a hub to another destination, if you're able to avoid it. An hour 45 minutes, hour and a half air travel is certainly perfectly reasonable, especially when you consider in addition that if it really is essential, the Secretary of Transportation has the ability to waive this legislation. So people are just unilaterally assuming that somehow some terrible thing will happen when the authority already exists in the executive branch to prevent that from happening. So to further hold the whole system hostage over a small effort to reform what really has been, I think, over a period of years an accumulation of earmarks--people had the ability to provide for a subsidy for an airport in their district in this area or that area because they were in leadership on the committee or in the Congress, and we've seen this pile up and pile up, and it's really about time it gets addressed. And asking people to find a way to get to an airport, if it's less than 90 miles that they have to find alternative transportation, rather than having the Federal Government subsidize it in a few airports around the country seems to me to be something that is badly in need of doing. It saves money for the taxpayer. Not a whole lot, but I think estimates are between $8 million and $9 million a year. I guess around here that doesn't amount to a whole lot, but in most communities and families and other areas, that's a lot of money. Of course, we have to remember the Federal Government isn't the only government concerned. If people really do want a subsidized service because of some local need, the community or the State or the county involved is certainly perfectly free to do that. So why we should be picking a couple dozen communities around the entire United States and subsidizing to the extent of over $1,000 per passenger to provide this sort of almost air limousine service for a few individuals in these communities is beyond me. Yet if this is nonnegotiable and we can't concede to the language already in the Senate bill and we're going to have to shut down the whole system, except for essential air service, because of trying to do this modest reform after 23 extensions or 24 extensions, we've really come to a pretty kind of arbitrary and unreasonable place here in this House. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.